Truth Magazine

By Tommy Glendol McClure

As the morals of this nation and the world continue to decline, many professed Christians have either completely lost or are on the road to losing their righteous indignation. I recently heard an excellent sermon where the preacher stressed the fact that many are not willing to accept God’s Word and the principles of Truth contained therein are the absolute standard of authority. Therefore, they are not willing to make a logical decision based on Bible principles concerning a practice but resort to situation ethics to make their determination.

Some of our so called “conservative” brethren, who stand opposed to institutional issues are rather liberal in their thinking and practice on moral issues. It has been reported of late that several gospel preachers in California participate in the social consumption of alcoholic beverages publicly and privately, some serving such in their own homes. A man told me that his son was advised by an “elder” of a local congregation that there was nothing wrong with drinking beer socially. Not so surprising is the fact that these brethren are often the proponents of error on marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Some gospel preachers and brethren have resorted to what I call “Loophole Logic” in their justification of immoral practices. A gospel preacher in California was recently asked this question: “At what point does the drinking of alcohol become sinful?” In his answer he cited Rom. 13:13; Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:21; Deut. 21:18-21; and Prov. 23:20-21, which specifically condemns drunkenness and no one would disagree. However, he also cited Luke 21:34 implying that this is Christ’s final word on the matter stating, “The simple answer to the question, then, is, ‘When the drinking becomes drunkenness, it is a sin(Contender! January/February 1993, p. 5). He also taught that to cast a stumbling block and cause a brother to fall would be sinful. Therefore, the conclusion reached from his answer is, drinking strong drink is sinful only if one becomes drunk or if a brother is offended and caused to stumble?

Nowhere in his answer does he mention the dangers of the brewers art (strong drink), but only seeks to justify its use by implying the Scriptures condemn only drunkenness. The answers given are very dangerous in light of the blight inflicted on society in general, and especially teen-agers, from the consumption of alcohol. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) reported in the 1992 Driver Handbook (p.76), “In 1990, there were 4,600 fatal collisions in California, killing 5,173 persons. Alcohol was found to be the main cause of 46 percent of the accidents.” More importantly, God’s Word warns of the dangers of strong drink (Prov. 20:1; 23:20-34; Isa. 5:11). The gospel demands soberness, holiness, the presentation of our bodies as a living sacrifice, and abstinence from all appearance of evil (1 Tim. 3:2-I1; Titus 1:7-8; 2:11-12; Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 6:20; 1 ‘Mess. 5:22; 1 Pet. 1:13-10, 22; 2:5-10; 4:7; 5:6-8). The warnings in the Scriptures, the debauchery, doom and death caused by the use of alcohol should cause all accountable people of God to realize the dangers of this poison. For Christians and especially gospel preachers, to attempt to justify the social consumption of alcohol using “Loophole Logic” and neglecting to warn of the dangers of its use makes for a shameful disgrace!

This same preacher again used “Loophole Logic” when asked this question: “Does the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-32 and 19:3-12 prohibit the one put away for fornication from marrying again?” He answers 

Dear reader and questioner, please turn now in your Bible and read the above cited passages. Does your Bible say such sinners cannot marry again? The “putting away” is the sin, not marrying . . . If these passages prohibit one from marrying, then the Apostle Paul should have said in 1 Corinthians 7:2, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man (except those the Catholics have determined cannot many) have his own wife, and let every woman (same exception) have her own husband” (Contender! March/April, 1993, p. 5).

You will notice that his argument is based on what the Bible does not say. The same sort of logic could be used in an attempt to justify instrumental music, social drinking and a host of other practices which are not authorized in the Scriptures. Where is the positive divine authority that allows the one put away for fornication to marry again? When God specifies a thing in a class, is not everything else in that class eliminated? Jesus specified in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, the one exception for putting away, and further stated that when one marries the guilty one put away for the only lawful exception (for fornication), adultery is committed. Only the innocent party who puts away the guilty party is free to marry again.

Brethren, we need to respect the principles of divine Truth and severe all sinful relationships which place our soul in eternal jeopardy. Let us cease excusing sin, let us rid our minds of “Loophole Logic” and let us strive with all diligence to “come to the knowledge of the Truth” (1 Tim. 2:4)!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 23-25
October 7, 1993

By Paul Williams

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14, NASB) In the margin of the NASB there is a note concerning the words “bound together” which states, “Lit., unequally yoked,” and this is how the phrase is translated in the King James Version.

This verse does not mean that a person married to an unbeliever is sinning by being married to him. This is clear from what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:12-13: “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, let him not send her away. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away.” Paul’s instructions to the one unequally yoked to an unbeliever are: “Therefore, ‘come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord” (2 Cor. 7:17) If one is unequally yoked to an unbeliever, one must come out from that yoke and be separate; however a believer yoked to an unbeliever in marriage is to remain in that marriage if the unbeliever is content to allow the marriage to continue. Therefore, being married to an unbeliever is not, in itself the unequal yoke Paul writes about in 2 Corinthians 7:14.

However, marriage to an unbeliever can become an unequal yoke. This is what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 7:15: “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.” Under certain circumstances a Christian married to an unbeliever must choose not to continue in that marriage. This happens when the marriage is an unequal yoke.

I know a young woman who is planning to marry a man who opposes the church of the Lord and has told her that he will not allow her to go to church after they are married. If she marries him she will have entered into a yoke which will require her to do evil in order to stay married. If she marries the man under these circumstances she will be rebelling against God. If after she marries she repents of her sin, and the man will not change his opposition to the Lord, she will have to insist on going to church even if it means he leaves her. Following Christ is more important than keeping a marriage together!

In Columbus, Ohio I called on a member of the church who had not attended services in the years she had lived in that city. She explained that she was married to a Roman Catholic. He insisted that the children be reared as Catholics and did not want her to go to church. She explained to me that since it was important for her to obey her husband she was sending the children to a Catholic school and not going to church herself. That woman was doing evil in order to obey her husband even though the apostles said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) What she should have done was to choose to obey God. If her husband would not then allow her to live with him, she should have “let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (I Cor. 7:15).

Therefore 2 Corinthians 6:14 applies to marriage just as it does to any other relationship. When a Christian is forced to do evil in order to keep any relationship from breaking up that Christian is unequally yoked, and if a Christian is unequally yoked he or she must come out of that relation-ship. If you have to lie in order to keep your job, you must refuse to lie and must let your boss fire you. If your parents command you to do wrong, you must refuse even if they disown you. If your husband demands that you not follow Christ, you must follow Christ even if he divorces you.

I knew a woman in Columbus, Ohio who was fired when she refused to give to the Community Chest. I know a young man in South Africa who refused to lie for his boss over the telephone and was fired on the spot. I know a number of young people who have had to leave home because their parents will not let them stay at home unless they worship ancestors. A young girl had to leave her mother because her mother insisted that the girl commit fornication with a certain man. These Christians obeyed God rather than man and came out from unequal yokes. Working for a boss is not an unequal yoke unless it causes you to do wrong in order to keep the job. Having parents does not cause an unequal yoke unless the parents insist that the child does evil. Marriage is not an unequal yoke unless one partner insists that the other disobey God. But when any relationship becomes an unequal yoke, the believer must obey God rather than man even if obeying God destroys a precious relationship.

Paul wrote, “the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15) The woman who obeyed her Roman Catholic husband by sending her children to Catholic schools and staying home from church misunderstood the nature of her bondage to her husband. We are not under bondage to anyone that we should sin. We have never been under such bondage. Even in marriage we are not under bondage to keep the marriage together at the price of sinning against God.

But don’t read more into what Paul wrote in I Corinthians 7:15 than what he actually wrote. The verse does not say that the believer is free to remarry if the unbeliever departs. The only thing Paul says is that the believer must not feel guilty if, by following the Lord, he or she causes the unbeliever to leave. Paul already told the Corinthians what the divorced person must do. “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away” (1 Cor. 7:10-71). The only time a divorced person has the right to remarry is when the person divorces his or her mate for the cause of fornication (Matt. 19:9). All other divorced persons do not have the right to remarry and must “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.”

How careful we should be, therefore, when we plan to get married. We must understand thoroughly that no matter what happens we must obey God. If this leads to trouble in the marriage, we have no choice. God must come first. Therefore we should be as careful as we can be to marry one who will assist us in obeying God, not to hinder us. It is sinful foolishness to think that love will overcome all obstacles. If you marry an obstinate unbeliever, you are either going to disobey God or be left by the unbeliever. Be as sure as you can. Don’t enter into the yoke of marriage if there is the likelihood that it will become an unequal yoke.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 20-21
October 7, 1993

By Connie W. Adams

Paul preached the same gospel on the resurrection of Christ, and the assurance that gave of a general bodily resurrection when the Lord returns, which the other apostles preached even though he was “born out of due time” (1 Cor. 15:8). That means he was brought into the apostolic work later than the other apostles. Even so, the appearance of the Lord to him on the Damascus Road qualified him as a witness of the resurrection. In verse 11 he said, “Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye have believed.” Paul’s preaching on the resurrection was an valid as that of the other apostles.

Relationship Between Preaching and Faith

There is an inseparable bond between the preaching that is done and the faith it produces in the hearers. “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). The thing preached provokes the faith that saves. “So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). In the same context, Paul asked, “How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14) When the Ethiopian treasurer was converted, the Holy Spirit did not address the man, nor did the angel of the Lord. God’s providence brought him in contact with a preacher of the gospel. “Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus” (Acts 8:35). It was this message which he believed and obeyed to the saving of his soul.

My brethren, we must never lose faith in the power of the preached word. This is the seed which sprouts and springs to life in the good and honest heart (Lk. 8:11). I fear that many have lost faith in the power of gospel preaching. They want very little of it, seeming unwilling to be inconvenienced to hear even that little bit, and want it short, sweet, all warm and fuzzy so that it makes them cry a little or laugh a lot. When weak brethren recover their conviction that gospel preaching does good, they will want to hear more, not less, of it. They will demand that what is preached is the word of God and not the word of man. They will bring their Bibles and check to see that what is taught is the truth.

Strong preaching produces strong faith. Paul told Titus to present “sound doctrine” to “aged men” so that they would be “sound in faith” (Tit. 2:1). Would it not follow that unsound doctrine would produce unsound faith? Water down the preaching and you water down the faith. Preach the wisdom of men and hearers will place their faith in men and not in God. Fill your preaching with the popular buzz words of the pop religious writers and radio and television evangelists and you will produce audiences of spiritual illiterates and spiritual dwarfs.

Opposing Error

Faith building preaching must emphasize the fundamentals of truth. But it must also oppose error which restricts the flow of truth into the hearts of hearers. Like blocked arteries which restrict the flow of blood, so error in the mind shuts off life giving truth. Many have rejected Bible teaching on baptism for the remission of sins because their spiritual arteries have been blocked with massive chunks of “faith only,” “just pray the sinners’ prayer,” “accept Jesus as your personal Savior” or “I know what I feel in my heart.” In order to implant faith in such hearts, it is necessary to provide some spiritual surgery. Objectors to such surgery are standing in the way of the salvation of the lost. The word of God will clear out the error and help the subject to embrace the truth.

Titus was instructed to teach elders of the church to employ sound doctrine to “exhort and convict the gainsayers” and to stop the mouths of those who subvert whole houses (Tit. 1:9-10). He said this must be done “that they may be sound in the faith” (v. 13). Why does so much error strut unchallenged through the land, destroying one church after another? Why has the tolerance level been raised for weak preaching or for that which generates more doubt than faith? Where are the elders? Whatever became of vigilance? Of watching for souls? What has become of “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2)? One is not to teach otherwise than “wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3).

Have weak pulpits contributed to the avalanche of ungodliness which has fallen upon so many congregations to the end that many members have imbibed the spirit of the world about us?

 Make no mistake, my dear brethren, the faith of hearers is linked to the kind of preaching and teaching received. Of course, it is possible to faithfully preach the truth only to be ignored by those who love the world more than the Lord. But let it not be because the whole counsel of God was not preached. “So we preach, and so ye believed.”

 Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 3-4
October 21, 1993

By Mike Willis

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditious, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as! have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:t9-21).

In this list of the works of the flesh, there are various categories of sin: (I) Sins of lust: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness; (2) Sins of religion: idolatry, witchcraft; (3) Sins of brotherly love: hatred, variance, emulations! wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders; (4)Sins of intemperance: drunkenness, revellings. Profitable study can be gained from a consideration of any of these works of the flesh. However, the section on violations of brotherly love seems most appropriate for this time. Some imply that we need to have more get togethers to be drawn closer together. While there is an element of truth in this, the base line is that we need to remove the sins of the flesh to have the kind of brotherly love commanded by Christ. Please consider what each of the following violations of brotherly love involves.

1. Hatred (echthrai), The Greek word for enemy” is echthros. The word for hatred (echthrai) is from the same word group as the word for enemy. One has enmity or hatred in his heart toward his brother when he looks on him as his enemy. The word echthra is the precise opposite of agape (love). William Barclay explained, “Agape, love, the supreme Christian virtue, is that attitude of mind which will never allow itself to be bitter to any man, and which will never seek anything but the highest good of others, no matter what the attitude of others be to it. Echthra is the attitude of mind and heart which puts up the harriers and which draws the sword; agape is the attitude of heart and mind which widens the circle and holds out the hand of friendship and opens the arms of love. The one is the work of the flesh; the other is the fruit of the Spirit” (The Works of the Flesh 42).

When we look upon any brother as our enemy, there is an absence brotherly love. We are exhibiting the works of the flesh every time that hatred shows itself in words or in deeds.

2. Variance (ens). The word ens is translated in the various versions by such words as the following: “strife,” “a contentious temper,” dissension,” “disputing,” “quarrelling.” Hatred and variance are related to each other. Echthra (hatred, enmity) is a state and attitude of mind towards other people; ens (variance, stnfe) is the outcome in actual life of that state of mind. Arndt and Gingrich define ens as “strife, discord, contention” (309).

We should understand what “discord” is by considering its opposite: harmony. The sweet, melodious sounds of music are created by voices blending together. Discord is voices in conflict with each other. Whatever the issue is, we should work to find the path of peace. Paul wrote, If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). Those who manifest the fruit of the Spirit search, not for their own way in conflict with the will of others, but for the path of peace. To the degree that there is self-willed pressing for ones own way, the Devil is ruling in ones heart.

Those who rise in holy hatred of fornication, adultery, lasciviousness, drunkenness, and revelry can sit in peaceful silence when a congregation is torn apart by strife, contentious tempers, disputing, and quarreling. My Bible says that God calls all of them the same thing: works of the flesh or sin.

3 and 4. Emulations (zelos) and envying (phthonos). The word zelos is one of those words which can be used to describe both a fruit of the Spirit or a work of the flesh. depending on what its object is. It is the Greek word from which the English word “zeal” is derived. One can have either a holy or unholy kind of zeal. When used in its ugly sense, zelos refers to that unholy competition for first place among brethren. This is the spirit of heart which casts ugly looks when a person excels in some ability or accomplishment. This word is closely akin to the word envying.”

Phthonos (envying) is translated by some texts as “rivalry.” This spirit is more malignant than emulations. When envying has degenerated it manifests itself in hostile deeds. It experiences pain at anothers good. Barclay explains that “this pain springs not from the fact that the beholder does not possess the fine thing; it springs from the fact that the other person does. The man who has phthonos in his heart is not fired with noble ambition; he is simply embittered at the sight of someone else possessing what he has not got, and he would do his utmost, not to possess the thing, but to prevent the other person from possessing it”(47).

He continued, “Maybe it is true to say that there is no better test of a man than his reaction to the greatness and to the success of someone else. If it moves him to the zelos which is noble ambition to goodness, that is the work of the Spirit, but, if it moves him to a bitter and envious resentment, that is the work of the flesh, and what ought to be a spur to goodness has become a persuasion to sin” (49).

These sinful attitudes can only be rooted out by repentance. All of the time we spend together, all the wonderful pies that we eat, and games that we play will not remove one sin from our lives. (This is not said to minimize the Bible virtue of hospitality which is commanded of God. Rather, it is to emphasize that sin can only be removed by repentance and forgiveness.)

5. Wrath. The word thumos is translated by other versions as “anger” fits of rage,” “temper,” outbursts of passion,” and bad temper.” The word describes the kind of anger which tends to explode. The Greeks said that thumos was like fire in straw, quickly blazing up and just as quickly burning itself out.” Barclay concluded, Thumos is, therefore, not long cherished anger; it is the blaze of temper which flares into violent words and death, and just as quickly dies” (52). He then added,

Many a person is well aware that he has a violent temper; and many a person claims that he cannot help it, and expects others to accept and to forgive his bursts of passion. The NT is quite clear that such displays of anger are sinful manifestations that a man is still in the grip of his own lower nature. It may well be that such a person is never fully aware of the way in which he wounds others and produces a situation in which fellowship becomes very difficult. Because he blazes and forgets he thinks that others should equally be able to forget the pain he has inflicted. Let such a person remember that such displays of temper are sin, and that the way to overcome them is through the power of the Spirit in his heart (53).

6. Strife. The word eritheia is translated by other translations with such words as factions,” selfishness,” selfish ambition, and “rivalry.” In other passages, the word eritheic, is translated contention.” The word eritheia is derived from a word root which meant “working for hire.” There is not a very great step between working for pay and working only for pay, working for no other motive than to see how much one can make.

In Grecian politics, the word was used to describe “the action of a man whose sole motive is either party or personal ambition, and who does not seek office with the high desire to serve the state and the community and his fellowmen, but who only seeks to gratify his personal ambition, his personal desire for power, or the exaltation of a party in competition with other parties and not for the good of the state. The word describes the attitude of a man who is in public service for what he can get out of it, only this time the motive is not so much material or financial gain as it is personal prestige and power” (54).

Sometimes churches are troubled by men with selfish ambition who are bent on getting their way at all costs. Men with the spirit of Diotrephes, who love to have the preeminence (3 John 9), trouble churches. When men start pressing for their own way, they create factions groups which support their position  invariably in opposition to other factions opposed to that position. When this kind of strife appears in a local church, the works of the flesh are manifest.

7.Sedition. The word dichostasia is also translated “divisions,” “dissension.” The word “denotes a state of things in which men are divided, in which feuds flourish, and in which unity is destroyed” (56). The state described by dichostasia is one step beyond that described by eritheia (strife). The partisan rivalry has rallied the congregation into distinctive groups. While a formal split has not yet occurred, the two groups are identifiable. This is the situation when dichostasia has occurred. When this has happened, the works of the flesh are in progress. Action must be taken to remove the sin for true, biblical unity to be restored. Repentance must remove the party rivalry which develops. Unyielding wills must become flexible. Brethren must begin addressing not, “my way versus “your way,” but “What course of action can we pursue which has unanimous support?” If this does not happen, soon the next step of division will occur.

8. Heresies. The English word heresy” is a transliteration of hairesis. When heresies come, the informal division has become a formal split. The two groups no longer can peacefully co-exist; they have chosen to go their separate ways. From one united group two groups are formed. Sometimes this happens over differences in conviction of a doctrinal nature. When two groups differ over what the Bible teaches, the differences may lead to no other alternative except unity in error or division. In this case, division must come. Paul spoke of this situation when he said, For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manliest among you” (1 Cor. II: 19). However, when there are no doctrinal issues at stake and such divisions come, someone has been guilty of

 Through the years, I have received a number of notices of “new congregations established” which should have said, “The brethren at _________ congregation could not get along with one another any longer. There were men on both sides with selfish ambition who created strife, division, and finally a formal split. We are happy to announce that the group which left the other group is meeting at _________ Where this spirit exists, the devil rules in the congregation, for the works of the flesh are growing in place of the fruit of the Spirit. May God deliver us from these sins.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 2
October 21, 1993